Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/11/12 11:47:14
Subject: Been away from the community, can someone give me a summation of AoS and KoW?
infinite_array wrote: Except for the fact that there are plenty of other fantasy skirmish games that do cooperative, narrative, and RPGish approaches far better than AoS does.
Yeah, I really don't get why anyone would say that AoS is great for RPG-style gaming. Where's the ability to have your character(s) grow as you continue the story? Where's the ability to work together with your fellow players instead of just slaughtering them until you achieve the game objectives? AoS doesn't have RPG elements built into the rules, it's just so inexcusably bad that the only way to even attempt to play it is to come up with a story first so that you limit the amount of rule abuse people can get away with.
Yeah, if I wanted tabletop RPG gaming I'd bust out something like WFRP 1st Ed which has a move stat and all the other stuff you need to literally play an RPG on the tabletop.
3. Ninth Age - this is where Europe is going. It's a fan-write of WFB, a true successor to WFB8, with complex rules but somewhat simplified units.
[...]
However, none of this really matters. If you play, you will simply play whatever your friends play.
Agree with the last point, but there is not only 9th Age in Europe. We have also WarhammerCE, FluffHammer, Warhammer Darkness Edition, and KoW. No one can say which System will make it in the end.
9th Age is doing their Beta test at the moment and they are talking about a 10th Age now of being the real goal because 9th will just be a FAQ Edition to have something ready for the ETC (at least this is what some people which are involed in the project are saying).
The others are older because they started their work during Warhammer EndTimes and have finished rules and army lists. But because they were not hyped by the ETC players they are more or less unknown outside their local groups.
I get that there are loads of others (you could even play Chainmail), but they really don't matter any more. ETC unanimously backed and committed to Ninth, so that will be the winner, because it will have the highest profile games and events around it. Personally, I'm really curious to see when DoW get their list - I'm really looking forward to it.
Is "selective reporting" on the Dakka bingo card? Yes, a significant chunk of the existing WHF teams will be playing 9th Age at ETC. However, there is also going to be a KoW Side Event with the aim to grow it into a full system in it's own right, and several "ETC Personalities" like Severin and Frederique will be playing KoW.
Ex-Mantic Rules Committees: Kings of War, Warpath
"The Emperor is obviously not a dictator, he's a couch." Starbuck: "Why can't we use the starboard launch bays?"
Engineer: "Because it's a gift shop!"
2015/11/12 16:22:32
Subject: Been away from the community, can someone give me a summation of AoS and KoW?
Longstreet (ACW mass battles)
7TV (60s style Spy Fi skirmish)
Fistful of Kung Fu (Hong Kong action movie skirmish)
Dragon Rampant (Mediaeval based fantasy skirmish)
Ronin (Japanese ganbara film skirmish)
Doctor Who (the Crooked Dice skirmish game)
And for smaller scale there are games like Zombicide - which is a blast.
But given that the point in AoS, as written, is to kill your opponent's models... cooperative play is more than a bit of a stretch.
I do wonder how AoS would have been received if it had been marketed as a new Specialist Game instead of as a replacement for a game that it bears little structural similarity to.
I would have thought that would be the more logical thing for them to have done - and not produced the backlash that they are facing from fans of maneuver based fantasy wargaming.
In some ways it has similarities with the backlash against Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition - though WotC did react by launching 5th well ahead of their planned schedule, and reversing some of the more... egregious aspects of 4th edition.
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
2015/11/12 17:20:55
Subject: Been away from the community, can someone give me a summation of AoS and KoW?
Are you talking about obscure rulesets I've never heard of or which I would have to buy independently from a starter box of minis?
Oh hey, that's cool - movable goalposts! What a useful feature.
How is that moving the goalposts? OP asks about two mainstream games that come in reasonably generous starter sets, and have active communities all over the world. Then Vermis and Auld start chiming in with the kinds of rule sets that have none of those things, rules that only grognards would know and love. The rule sets might be superior, but they don't come with shiny plastics, widespread community, or loss-leader Black Friday blowout sales. They are, in essence, talking to someone asking if he should read Dune or Ender's Game and telling him to go with Greg Egan. That's helpful in a way that isn't helpful.
Still, I'm interested. Please tell me which games are cooperative, narrative and easy to learn.
Frostgrave, Open Combat, Otherworld, and Song of Blades and Heroes come to mind pretty quickly.
Thanks! I've got SoBaH and Frostgrave on the list of games to try with the biy when he comes of age. I have honestly never even heard of the other two, and I've spent waaayyyy too much time on Dakka.
Of course, if you want to play in the Warhammer Fantasy World, there's always Mordheim.
Or WHFRP. Really, though, I just wanted to read about the Warhammer World, back when there were mysteries and destinies to unravel.
And if you're like other AoS supporters and your definition of "easy to learn" rules means you can count the pages of core rules on one hand, then there's One Page Fantasy for bigger games, and One Page Skirmish for smaller games. Both of which, when including the full campaign rules, are four pages. Simple enough, right?
Yes. That is what I mean. I want rules I can learn while my opponent sets up his army, not evening-ending FFG style textbooks. I'll check those games out.
Frostblade is pretty new. It being published by Osprey, well-known publishers of wargaming assistance books (campaigns, uniforms, and so on.) Having started with Field of Glory a few years ago, they have gone on to make a range of fairly simple softback rulebooks (Fistful of Kung Fu, Ronin, and others.)
Frostgrave is a higher production value book in hardback.
I doubt there are many games that you can learn while the other guy is setting up his army. AoS might just work, because if you are familiar with WHFB and 40K, the rules are very familiar. However army set up in AoS alternates between players so you would not have time to read the rules actually during deployment.
Mymearan wrote:It has simple base rules but complex unit rules, it has tactics
That seems like a contradiction in terms. Most tactical games do it the other way, so to speak: deeper basic mechanics, some universal special rules, and very few unique unit rules.
Or do you mean 'tactics' in the same way as, say, the '40K tactics' board? 'Cos the first part of your line does sound like a basic description of that game.
Not a question to me but I'd say
You can have simple rules and deep gameplay (KoW)
You can have complex rules and deep gameplay (Warmachine)
You can have complex rules and shalow gameplay (40k)
You can also have pretending-to-be simple mess of half arsed basic rules bloated by tons of meaningless special rules and gameplay so shallow that it's actualy the very bottom of the depth scale (AoS)
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
How could I look away?
2015/11/12 23:38:39
Subject: Been away from the community, can someone give me a summation of AoS and KoW?
While I agree in essence, you may want to tone that down a shade.
I am, again, reminded of the depth of edition warring with 4th edition D&D. (Though in that case the opening salvos were fired by the publisher... a stupid move that GW has amazingly managed to avoid.)
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
2015/11/12 23:47:19
Subject: Been away from the community, can someone give me a summation of AoS and KoW?
Yes. That is what I mean. I want rules I can learn while my opponent sets up his army, not evening-ending FFG style textbooks. I'll check those games out.
Then you want a board game.
A hobby game I'd expect and want it to take a bit longer to work out. That's why it's a hobby and not say, a board game.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
2015/11/12 23:48:46
Subject: Been away from the community, can someone give me a summation of AoS and KoW?
TheAuldGrump wrote: While I agree in essence, you may want to tone that down a shade.
I am, again, reminded of the depth of edition warring with 4th edition D&D. (Though in that case the opening salvos were fired by the publisher... a stupid move that GW has amazingly managed to avoid.)
The Auld Grump
That one article where they spent half of their bullet points trying to talk down WHFB (Averland is dead! Long live the floating islands of the Shimmertarn!) counts, I would think!
2015/11/12 23:55:34
Subject: Been away from the community, can someone give me a summation of AoS and KoW?
TheAuldGrump wrote: While I agree in essence, you may want to tone that down a shade.
I am, again, reminded of the depth of edition warring with 4th edition D&D. (Though in that case the opening salvos were fired by the publisher... a stupid move that GW has amazingly managed to avoid.)
The Auld Grump
That one article where they spent half of their bullet points trying to talk down WHFB (Averland is dead! Long live the floating islands of the Shimmertarn!) counts, I would think!
Managed to miss that - but then I haven't bothered with White Dwarf for a good long while.
I have no interest in Ninth Age, but I hope that it does well, as I have less than no interest in Age of Sigmar.
In general, I would much prefer to talk up Kings of War than talk down Age of Sigmar. (Looking to play against an old nemesis of mine next week - I fully expect him to clean my clock. Literally, since we will be having timed games. )
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
2015/11/13 00:03:23
Subject: Re:Been away from the community, can someone give me a summation of AoS and KoW?
I'm warring internally whether to have the setting of my 15mm Kings of War homegames (mostly the wife and a couple friends) set in the Old World, or a more old-fashioned DnD fantasy setting I created for an RPG game I was going to run as my turn as my group's GM (Twilight Kin would be traditional black-skinned drow, etc).
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
2015/11/13 01:05:45
Subject: Been away from the community, can someone give me a summation of AoS and KoW?
And fair enough if people want to play games with special-rule synergy. That's one way to play. Done it meself. I know to my chagrin that one of the fastest ways to move C. 'Molasses' Hoffman in 1st ed Malifaux was to attach a Guardian to him and use their special drawn to metal and overprotective rules to 'slingshot' eachother across the board. And there were all the other rules that filled up their cards, that almost seemed to make the basic rules redundant. That seems to be what's happening with AoS, it's 4-page pdf, and all those warscrolls.
I don't know if I'd call it 'tactical', though. It seems more limited to listbuilding to make sure you have the right combination of models to have the right combination of special rules to pull off a fancy... combo... in-game, than not. (And to have just the right special rules you have to go and buy the right models...) You might call it strategic, in the sense of creating a plan beforehand, but in terms of making ad hoc decisions and resource management in-game...?
In Malifaux I think the most tactical elements are alternate model activation, management of your hand of cards, and soulstone use - all basic mechanics that are largely independent of the cardsful of unique abilities. (Even then I wasn't entirely jazzed by the way card duels pulled you away from the mini action) What about AoS? Just going by the 4-page pdf, there's the 'command' ability and the alternate activation of units already engaged. (Or near enough) It's... not much.
YMMV on the definition of tactics.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Mantic needs to make their own Fantasy game, and divorce from GW. Yes, it's good that their game was broadly compatible with WFB, but it can't be WFB. People expecting KoW to support all of GW's myriad WFB whatnots are bound to be disappointed. Right now, Mantic is in this wierd place of trying to put a twist on GW's WFB Armies so they can capture all of the disgruntled ex-GW players, but that just doesn't work from a long term business standpoint, because it just becomes a lot of work to sell a single rulebook & armybook, without any follow-on minis sales.
Agreed pretty much, except on one point: it's a lot of work to give away rules and army lists, without any follow-on minis sales. Better for gamers, but maybe not so much if it eventually bites Mantic on the arse and the ingrained phobia of 'dead' games rears it's ugly head.
As I've said, KoW is a huge step up from WHFB in my opinion, but also that it's not far enough for my liking, for reasons I've hinted at in my last post in this topic. Fair enough in a way: I've seen a lot of Warhammer players spluttering and gnashing their teeth over the sheer temerity of unit elements and the lack of special rules for everything down to skavenslaves. Imagine if the changes were greater?
No need to imagine, though, for reasons I've given in my first post in this topic.
If he were the Alpha telling the Betas what to play, he wouldn't be asking the question!
True enough!
infinite_array wrote:
Of course, if you want to play in the Warhammer Fantasy World, there's always Mordheim.
I've got me Warmaster armies for playing in the Warhammer World with Mayhem rules, though I'm also interested in new Lords and Lands rules for playing in the Warhammer world, and there are a couple of others that've popped up IIRC. I also hope to break some 28mm Warhammer models out to play in the Warhammer world with Dragon Rampant rules. It might take a while - I've just taken receipt of some Heresy troopers and Star Wars first order snowspeeders for playing in the Warhammer 40K world with Victory Decision rules, and a bunch of historical 6mm minis for playing in the Warhammer 40K world with the NetE:A rules.
Okay, that last one's not so much of a stretch.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/13 01:06:16
TheAuldGrump wrote: While I agree in essence, you may want to tone that down a shade.
I am, again, reminded of the depth of edition warring with 4th edition D&D. (Though in that case the opening salvos were fired by the publisher... a stupid move that GW has amazingly managed to avoid.)
The Auld Grump
That one article where they spent half of their bullet points trying to talk down WHFB (Averland is dead! Long live the floating islands of the Shimmertarn!) counts, I would think!
Managed to miss that - but then I haven't bothered with White Dwarf for a good long while.
I have no interest in Ninth Age, but I hope that it does well, as I have less than no interest in Age of Sigmar.
In general, I would much prefer to talk up Kings of War than talk down Age of Sigmar. (Looking to play against an old nemesis of mine next week - I fully expect him to clean my clock. Literally, since we will be having timed games. )
And fair enough if people want to play games with special-rule synergy. That's one way to play. Done it meself. I know to my chagrin that one of the fastest ways to move C. 'Molasses' Hoffman in 1st ed Malifaux was to attach a Guardian to him and use their special drawn to metal and overprotective rules to 'slingshot' eachother across the board. And there were all the other rules that filled up their cards, that almost seemed to make the basic rules redundant. That seems to be what's happening with AoS, it's 4-page pdf, and all those warscrolls.
I don't know if I'd call it 'tactical', though. It seems more limited to listbuilding to make sure you have the right combination of models to have the right combination of special rules to pull off a fancy... combo... in-game, than not. (And to have just the right special rules you have to go and buy the right models...) You might call it strategic, in the sense of creating a plan beforehand, but in terms of making ad hoc decisions and resource management in-game...?
In Malifaux I think the most tactical elements are alternate model activation, management of your hand of cards, and soulstone use - all basic mechanics that are largely independent of the cardsful of unique abilities. (Even then I wasn't entirely jazzed by the way card duels pulled you away from the mini action) What about AoS? Just going by the 4-page pdf, there's the 'command' ability and the alternate activation of units already engaged. (Or near enough) It's... not much.
YMMV on the definition of tactics.
Well there's nothing wrong with playing and liking Age of Sigmar. There's lot of wrong with releasing it though.
Tactics for me is the number of meaningful choices to make and how predictable the game is. AoS is imo on the level of battle part from Heroes of Might and Magic on pc, not nothing but also not much really and every other major tabletop game is more tacticaly demanding. I like to play HoM&M from time to time btw but I wouldn't like for example Age of Wonders (pc) to be stupifyed to its level and I surely wouldn't plan, build and paint dozens of model for it. It all depends of the context, if Age of Sigmar was released alongside the fixed whfb, I could probably look at it with that kind of patronising sympathy, a silly and overblown high fantasy take on warhamms and he man with rules good to play when I cross the 0.7L booze plus few beers threshold and multiplying ranks by files starts to get tricky. As the only warhammer fantasy proposition, nope.
I play and enjoy combo games as well, not my favourite but I can play everything including euro boardgames (that's really, really hard though heh). I don't think AoS is a good combo game though, I don't think it's good at anything tbh.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/13 14:18:44
2015/11/13 10:01:11
Subject: Been away from the community, can someone give me a summation of AoS and KoW?
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
How could I look away?
2015/11/13 10:33:53
Subject: Been away from the community, can someone give me a summation of AoS and KoW?
TheAuldGrump wrote: While I agree in essence, you may want to tone that down a shade.
I am, again, reminded of the depth of edition warring with 4th edition D&D. (Though in that case the opening salvos were fired by the publisher... a stupid move that GW has amazingly managed to avoid.)
The Auld Grump
That one article where they spent half of their bullet points trying to talk down WHFB (Averland is dead! Long live the floating islands of the Shimmertarn!) counts, I would think!
Managed to miss that - but then I haven't bothered with White Dwarf for a good long while.
I have no interest in Ninth Age, but I hope that it does well, as I have less than no interest in Age of Sigmar.
In general, I would much prefer to talk up Kings of War than talk down Age of Sigmar. (Looking to play against an old nemesis of mine next week - I fully expect him to clean my clock. Literally, since we will be having timed games. )
The Auld Grump
Exalted!
2015/11/13 10:41:47
Subject: Re:Been away from the community, can someone give me a summation of AoS and KoW?
I'll largely reiterate the things I said about AoS at the time of release:
There is no convincing evidence that AoS is anything but a low effort product, lacking in any depth, creativity or originality.
The basic rules have no emergent complexity, instead piling on heaps of individual special rules for almost every unit, barely reward any player interaction or decision making in favour of random dice rolls and homogenising the core statlines, have laughably vague deployment and victory conditions, and are full of holes and exploits that were discovered within hours of them being seen, such that it's possible to autowin the game, or make it thoroughly unenjoyable for both sides entirely by accident, since there's nothing to help players choose comparable forces, and different players will have a different idea of what a fun game is, since fun is subjective. Pick-up games, the kind that some wargames communities rely on (particularly in the US, as I understand) are all but impossible, since there is no guideline for what is a fair matchup and thus it is difficult to determine the reason for a win or a loss, making learning and improving one's play equally difficult. The idea that it has been deliberately designed for "narrative" or "just for fun" play is unsupported, sounding instead like vague excusess, as well as being outright wrong given that a balanced, clear and concise ruleset serves narrative play far better than a vague mess.
AoS is also not a co-operative game, and claiming it as one is a weak excuse for the game being practically non-functional without substantial modification and pre-game comprimise - the kind that even its staunchest defenders admit to doing. A wargame, where two opposing armies fight to achieve a predetermined victory condition, is not co-operative. A co-operative game has all players working toward the same goal against the game itself (such as Pandemic, for example). An RPG can be considered a co-operative experience, since the player goals are far more loose and centred around in-depth, character-focused storytelling. AoS is clearly not an RPG, either, since it does not share these traits.
The suggestion that Warhammer had to change in this way because it wasn't profitable enough in it's existing form is flawed, considering the reasons for that lack of spending - high price/low value boxes, detrimentally complex and random rules, and a high model count requirement are the prevailing criticisms. Instead of addressing those issues with WHFB, or publishing a smaller scale game alongside it (or both) GW decided to deliberately exclude customers in favour of trying to create a theoretical 'new niche' , and threw away the few strong factors the game still had - i.e. it's well developed lore and characters, and its relative ubiquity. The new background is vapid and childish in comparison to the Warhammer World, and at best reads like fan fiction. Terrible naming schema and whiter-than-white good guys who can't die are a tedium, porting Space Marines practically wholesale into a Fantasy setting (pretending that the new Sigmarite faction is anything else is disingenuous) is beyond lazy, and the 'legacy' army rules read like an insult, an expression of the contempt GW has for veterans by making the old armies one big joke, a series of jibes at the 'manchildren' they believe those customers to be, and a thinly veiled effort to try and exclude those forces in favour of the new, AoS-specific ones.
Implying that those who criticise "aren't the target market' doesn't make any sense, given that GW don't advertise outside their tiny niche-within-a-niche, that veteran players - the ones they greatly annoyed with the change - are the biggest source of word of mouth, and that any prospective wargamer will very quickly be put off by a game so lacking in substance, or even an attempt (much less a successful one) at balance to prevent the rules being abused. Having to finish a product to make it useable is not a feature, and I'd be compelled to ask why anyone would spend the time to do so (particularly the new players that this reboot is intended to recruit) What is there about AoS over other wargames that is going to appeal to them? Having to work out what's balanced against what is not going to appeal in the face of so many other games that are ready to play (without limiting players to 'starter scenarios' or 'quick-start' rules only) out of the box.
Let us also not forget the most damning evidence: that GW representatives at conventions over the course of the last six months have not been offering demo games, which makes one wonder if even they know how poorly it will stand up if shown directly alongside so many other miniature and board games.
You forgot the mic drop...
So, yeah. What he said.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
2015/11/13 13:32:50
Subject: Re:Been away from the community, can someone give me a summation of AoS and KoW?
Kaptajn Congoboy wrote: I fear the 9th age (etc) initiatives Europe is working with will be difficult to maintain in the long run,
Considering how much effort goes into maintaining FAQs and such for Tournaments, I can't see Ninth being very much different. ETC does this little dance every year, and they've been going strong for several years. Their governance is quite good. I have a lot of faith that Ninth being the "house" ruleset for ETC is going to keep it alive for a very long time.
There is a world of difference between tweaking a game and keeping it alive and interesting. But we will see.
2015/11/13 14:42:27
Subject: Been away from the community, can someone give me a summation of AoS and KoW?
TheAuldGrump wrote: While I agree in essence, you may want to tone that down a shade.
I am, again, reminded of the depth of edition warring with 4th edition D&D. (Though in that case the opening salvos were fired by the publisher... a stupid move that GW has amazingly managed to avoid.)
The Auld Grump
That one article where they spent half of their bullet points trying to talk down WHFB (Averland is dead! Long live the floating islands of the Shimmertarn!) counts, I would think!
Managed to miss that - but then I haven't bothered with White Dwarf for a good long while.
I have no interest in Ninth Age, but I hope that it does well, as I have less than no interest in Age of Sigmar.
In general, I would much prefer to talk up Kings of War than talk down Age of Sigmar. (Looking to play against an old nemesis of mine next week - I fully expect him to clean my clock. Literally, since we will be having timed games. )
Good luck next week - I don't suppose you can be talked into doing some manner of battle report...?
I don't know, this is his first real big game of Kings of War - but he used to regularly trounce me at 40K. (Third edition - he had Imperial Guard, I had Dark Angels. His army was lots of squads and two Basilisks.)
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
2015/11/13 20:01:30
Subject: Re:Been away from the community, can someone give me a summation of AoS and KoW?
Kaptajn Congoboy wrote: I fear the 9th age (etc) initiatives Europe is working with will be difficult to maintain in the long run,
Considering how much effort goes into maintaining FAQs and such for Tournaments, I can't see Ninth being very much different. ETC does this little dance every year, and they've been going strong for several years. Their governance is quite good. I have a lot of faith that Ninth being the "house" ruleset for ETC is going to keep it alive for a very long time.
There is a world of difference between tweaking a game and keeping it alive and interesting. But we will see.
I would argue that if a game is good, with fun, interesting rules and balanced lists, it doesn't need to be constantly tweaked to keep it interesting.
Yes. That is what I mean. I want rules I can learn while my opponent sets up his army, not evening-ending FFG style textbooks. I'll check those games out.
Then you want a board game.
A hobby game I'd expect and want it to take a bit longer to work out. That's why it's a hobby and not say, a board game.
Yes, that does sound like what I want. BoardGame rules for my miniature collection. I want to be able to play (a game) with them without wasting my precious hobby time pouring over rules that I'll likely only use thrice a year. Give me simple rules and shallow game play any day.
For me, the hobby is the assembling of minis, the conversions and kitbashes. Then comes the fluff or background. Then, maybe painting. Finally, a "beard" that adds a veneer of legitimacy to the minis rules. Yes, many gamers come into games for the rules first and foremost, but I doubt that number is as much the overwhelming majority as some in this thread seem to believe.
Sorry Plumbumbarum, that tactics ramble wasn't directed just at you, and certainly not as an argument; but thanks for the reply anyway. I agree with what you say.
Vermis wrote: Sorry Plumbumbarum, that tactics ramble wasn't directed just at you, and certainly not as an argument; but thanks for the reply anyway. I agree with what you say.
Oh no man I didn't take it as antagonistic or sth at all, very clear posting from you and I just wanted to add my view and elaborate. It's all good, except Age of Sigmar Sorry AoS guys, just had to post that.
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
How could I look away?
2015/11/14 16:20:18
Subject: Been away from the community, can someone give me a summation of AoS and KoW?
So I've been away from the Warhammer community for a while. I left for the most part around the End of Times thing for two reasons, firstly I had no idea what was going on with AoS at the time (besides going to round bases), and I was going back to college at the time so figured I wouldn't give it too much focus anyway.
I've done some casual collecting, switching over to 40k in the meantime.
But I'm looking to return to Fantasy gaming. I'm trying to decide if I should consider going over to AoS (which in truth comes down to a singular question, should I rebase my models to round bases? I have an enormous amount and I'm not good at rebasing, but I like my models to be uniform in that way), or if I should make the jump a friend recommended and move instead to KoW?
How have things gone with the change to AoS? Are the community rejecting it or liking it?
And what's going on with KoW?
Should I instead buy square bases when I buy new models and transfer them on? Or if I'm going to rebase my models how best should I do it?
Thank you
Murdock129
This is not the ideal forum to ask for a neutral opinion on AoS, as you will probably have gathered by now.
2015/11/14 16:27:25
Subject: Re:Been away from the community, can someone give me a summation of AoS and KoW?
Tannhauser42 wrote: Unless those rules were just there to deliberately embarrass the people still trying to use their WHFB armies in AoS and will not be put into any rules for new, AoS specific, releases... Either way I find it just devalues the hobby as a whole to be encouraging that kind of crap. I don't consider spending hours painting something or playing a game at a competitive level to be 'playing with little army men' or 'man dollies' or what have you and it is hard enough to get people outside the hobby to see the difference without those kinds of rules.
Why are you defending this? I don't give a gak why they did it, but they did it and it is ridiculous.
We aren't larpers you know? They could have just excluded those armies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/14 16:28:00
2015/11/14 22:33:04
Subject: Been away from the community, can someone give me a summation of AoS and KoW?
TheAuldGrump wrote: While I agree in essence, you may want to tone that down a shade.
I am, again, reminded of the depth of edition warring with 4th edition D&D. (Though in that case the opening salvos were fired by the publisher... a stupid move that GW has amazingly managed to avoid.)
The Auld Grump
That one article where they spent half of their bullet points trying to talk down WHFB (Averland is dead! Long live the floating islands of the Shimmertarn!) counts, I would think!
Managed to miss that - but then I haven't bothered with White Dwarf for a good long while.
I have no interest in Ninth Age, but I hope that it does well, as I have less than no interest in Age of Sigmar.
In general, I would much prefer to talk up Kings of War than talk down Age of Sigmar. (Looking to play against an old nemesis of mine next week - I fully expect him to clean my clock. Literally, since we will be having timed games. )
Good luck next week - I don't suppose you can be talked into doing some manner of battle report...?
I finally read that article.... They were really trying to roll the changes in glitter, weren't they? (See Desubot's sig for the reference. )
***
Had the battle... and we plan on a rematch later in the week, now that Joe knows what he is doing.
I pretty much won the battle in deployment, he was rusty, and put his artillery where it did him the least good. (He was looking more at defending his guns, rather than where they could lay down fire.)
Even so, I barely managed to eke out 10% win - if one of the units that I crushed hadn't had a magic item, then it would have been a tie. (The unit was protected by The Brew of Courage - in his head he was thinking that Undead had a fear effect, like they do in Warhammer. It still could have helped, but when he fell, it was a by a good deal more than the +1 bonus would have helped. For my part... after two turns of beating on the unit, and giving better than I got... rolling box cars when I needed a six to rout him was a bit of ironic timing. An average roll would have done it - and even with Headstrong he had been wavered for a turn.)
Instead of helping him, it gave me just enough to have a victory instead of a draw. (Kill! mission.)
Even though he lost, Joe said that if he had enjoyed Warhammer that much then he wouldn't have gotten out of it. (Sixth did him in - I forget why, but I think it was mostly because of the magic.)
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
I agree with what you say.
